Recent posts by issendorf on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / should countries known for frequent human rights abuses be banned from international events like the olympics?

what about simply prohibiting countries with ongoing human rights abuses from the chance of hosting the olympics?

Because it’s hard enough to find someone to host the games. That hardly seems like a punishment…

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / why did the government fake the moon landing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

So if the moon landings were faked, how did the mirror array wind up on the moon? If you have access to an observatory for a project or a friend’s project, you can bounce a beam off them yourself, to prove to yourself that yes, they are actually up there.

So, what’s the explanation for a precision scientific instrument array having been built on the moon, one which it is possible to verify exists, if we didn’t actually go there?

It’s obviously a holograph.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / should countries known for frequent human rights abuses be banned from international events like the olympics?

Originally posted by beauval:

Wouldn’t be much of an Olympics without the USA, would it?

Meh – all the Summer Olympics needs is ping pong and badminton. God knows the US isn’t going to win a medal in those.

After all, we arrogantly & loudly tout that we are the BEST….
even tho we ignorantly don’t know shit about the rest.

Scoreboard don’t lie.

Suck it world.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

Don’t be silly. Why would he need data?

A boy can dream.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Womyn: noble effourt or heroic cause


Goodness I’ve missed you Jan.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

But then, why should I expect any more from ppl who aren’t able to understand the “name issue”?

Does this mean you actually have data that shows Natives give a shit about this?!?!

As mentioned in this link, a NEW, reliable poll would be very helpful. I found the slide show on “Who is open to changing the name” to be very interesting.

But, that’s the most recent we have. What gives you any evidence that more Natives either A) care B) are offended or C) want the name changed (because a large number of Natives like the name).

10 year old data is far more compelling than your lack of data.

I find it interesting how issnedorf manages to also rely on such an old & dubious “poll”. But then, he is good at finding highly reliable polls that support HIS agenda….while poo-pooing those which don’t. LOL

It’s not that I’m poo-pooing your poll – it’s that you don’t have any data to support your opinion.

I continue to believe, based on every Native that I’ve talked to about this, that they don’t give a shit about this, that they don’t find it offensive. This is an issue for white liberals who feel the need to feel guilty for other minorities, and that the fact you feel guilty somehow makes things better for themselves. It doesn’t. At the end of the day, all of your focus is on something that does absolutely nothing to improve the generally poor quality of life American Indians have.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

The Redskin name issue is ONLY a tiny part of even the tip….but still connected to the whole of the other, “more serious” problems….the ones so many genius seem to think are being ignored.

Yeah, the name Redskins is upsetting Native Americans so much, they have to take solace in large amounts of alcohol. That must be it!

Things have changed since that 2004 poll.

You’re right, things have. Here’s something quantifiable (since you won’t provide anything): In 1999, according to the Redskins’ trademark attorney, the patent office rescinded it 3-0. Now, it was only a 2-1 decision. Even the bureaucrats are becoming less enchanted with this (and, literally, the plantiffs used pretty much the exact same defense they did in 1999).

But: “Public pressure is boiling over. Public opinion is harder to gauge. Polling over the years has shown a majority of the country supports the team name. McCollum, co-chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, dismisses that. “We just saw what happened to Eric Cantor in a poll,” she said."

What else is the activist going to say when polling doesn’t support them other than, “Well, the polls can’t be trusted!!!!!!” If popular opinion was on their side, do you think that’s what they’d be spouting?

There are far greater problems facing minority groups in the States, and a rose by any other name…

Don’t you see vika? This is a small part of an iceberg that connects all the other problems Natives are facing. It’s so obvious!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

So, karma, a lot of what you’re saying here is that you don’t buy the 90% study. So let me ask you this: where’s your data that Native Americans A) care and B) view it as a racial slur. Where’s your reliable data? If you’re going to disregard the most recent data that completely contradicts your opinion, surely you have some actual, you know, evidence to back up that claim.

What makes YOU think they are dumb?

Sarcasm is tough stuff, mister.

But, can YOU get any dumber….THEY are the ones—and the ONLY ones—who should be using THEIR name as they see fit.
Just how hard is that to understand?

If it’s such a racial slur that you’re claiming, shouldn’t they be offended by the very use of it? After all, I don’t believe I’ve seen a black high school that calls themselves the fighting n——-s.

YES IT DOES make a difference. Such “little steps” serve to move them—often in very big ways, for some & for all—towards those areas that also need, AND ARE BEING ADDRESSED, as much positive efforts as they can get.

No, it doesn’t. It makes people like you feel good about yourself while ignoring actual problems. If only you had this zest for combating alcoholism among American Indians that you do for the name of an NFL team. Harry Reid has done jack shit to help Native Americans in his time in office. May be this satisfies his personal guilt? I’m not sure. I do know this crusade solely serves to make white liberals (many of whom have never been within 100 miles of a reservation) feel self-satisfied. That’s your company karma. Be proud.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

What it does mean is that there is a recognition that there was a wrong done and that it shall no longer continue….much like slavery & then segregation, discrimination, & abuse.

Except a name that the overwhelming majority of Native Americans take zero offense to hardly compares in any way remotely to slavery, segregation, etc.

But sure, karma. I’m sure you, a white man from Kansas, is far more qualified to tell those dumb Indians what they should truly be upset and concerned about. Not only did a recent poll find that 90% of Natives didn’t find it offensive, many Native American schools use it as as their mascot. So, if the vast, overwhelming majority of Natives don’t have an issue, why is it that you no better to be offended for them?

This is exactly what Jan said several months ago: all it does it whitewash the issue and ignores the actual problems facing Native Americans in this country, like low graduation rates, overwhelming alcoholism, and abject poverty. You and Harry Reid may pat yourself on the back for taking up this crusade, but at the end of the day, does it make a damn difference for people living on a reservation?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

A big way that would help, and be politically neutral, would be to offer free, or subsidised low-cost situation awareness and certified shooting lessons to anyone who wishes such, no strings attached.

I’m sure the NRA would disagree because that’s what the NRA likes to do: disagree with sensible reforms that don’t really limit your ability to buy a gun.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

UPDATE: The Redskins trademark has been cancelled.

However, there is a really obvious solution to this whole dilemma: the Redskins change their logo to a potato. They keep the name and it’s a delightfully adorable mascot. Total win-win.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

I mean, sure, you talked a lot about how “behind the times” Democrats are (though, I would argue that the reason this idea is so old is because it still hasn’t seriously been considered, much less happened)

Yeah, taxes have never been raised, regulations have never been implemented and we didn’t implement a “War on Poverty.” What was I thinking.

you’re not giving anything about why Republicans are in the now

HSAs? Republican idea.

Roth IRAs? Republican idea. Hey look, significant factors to help address health care and retirement savings!

EITC? A Republican idea (expanded greatly under Reagan, I might add).

Want more?

Also, I don’t particularly care which political party they ascribe to, if they’re tax-dodging, swinging their gold dicks around in politics, or whatever other thing I think is slimy, I wouldn’t like them.

So, you aren’t concerned when policies you tend to agree with do the opposite of what they’re intended to do? You’ll be a great partisan hack one day.

The thing I don’t understand is how this can all be the fault of the very rich.

It isn’t the fault of the rich. It’s the fault of the ignorant. The fact the 40+% of people think this President is doing a good job speaks for itself.

To parody Obama, America doesn’t have a monopoly on idiots, so how comw we see through them and you don’t?

Because people are too lazy to stay informed.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

Do I really? This was not intended to be a dissection of American policy. I am baffled by American conservatism (mainly with a small c) and resistance to any new political ideas. Sure, the rest of us have shown that welfare policies can be made to work, at least reasonably well. But that’s not really the point.

You have it backwards. Liberals in this country have had essentially one new idea (and really, it wasn’t even that new of an idea) over the past 50 years – government-run health care. That’s really it. There’s been no other ideas coming from that side of the table. Not only do they not have new ideas, they want to preserve Social Security the way it was when men lived to the age of 58 rather than adapt to changing demographics and changing budget realities. That’s the Democrats who are stuck in the policy world 80 years ago.

Seriously, what are the answers? Greater regulations. Higher taxes. More welfare spending. That’s the Democratic platform – same one since the Great Society. But, sure, it’s the Republicans who aren’t modern.

So I come seeking enlightenment rather than confrontation. A century and a half ago Americans were pioneers, still discovering their own country, ready to risk everything to find a better way. Now the American “can do” mentality looks like it’s on its way to becoming the American “afraid to try” mentality, and I don’t understand why.

Essentially this. We have the “can do” mentality which I still believe exists on a large scale. Your idea of the “best way” largely involves ceding large amounts of authority to the state and allowing them to run our lives. That contradicts the very “can do” mentality where people believe they want to do it on their own and to have the government get out of their damn way.

It is the huge gap in wealth distribution that is at the very core of our issues…causing a class warfare.

Fun fact: blue states tend to have higher levels of income inequality than red states. I can’t wait for you to try to blame that on the Koch brothers.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

What’s wrong with socialized healthcare? It very clearly works. Every other first world country has a better healthcare system than us by far in terms of efficiency and they do not sacrifice quality of care for that. Did you watch the link I provided? It’s only 7 minutes long and the meat of it is in the first 4.

I’m not going to sidetrack this thread into that. I’ll leave it at this: show me a program that the United States federal government runs efficiently. Just one. Just one program that isn’t either A) clearly going bankrupt or B) caught in an endless morass of bureaucratic facepalming.

As much as I’d like to through the rest of your post, I’m not going to hijack this thread any more than I already probably have.

Except that’ll barely reduce the overall spending of healthcare.

Actually, just watch everything that channel’s made; they’re usually no longer than seven minutes and have apparently done their job and made me more knowledgeable of healthcare.

Yes, the most learned people in society are those who learn from YouTube. Couldn’t agree more!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

Because a free market system only works where there are low barriers to entry and there is no free rider issue. Healthcare is exactly not that.

Here are eight bite-sized market-based reforms. They may actually do what the ACA hasn’t: reduce premiums. If you’d like something with more substance, hit up Cato.

I just wanted an eye catching header. If you don’t like it I will happily change it.

They’re your words – I can only assume since I agree with some of those quaint ideas you mention in the opening paragraph that I am indeed a lunatic. So, how does my skepticism that a centrally run healthcare system can work in this country an outlandish idea?

EDIT: Idea, not ideas. Healthcare was the only thing I took exception to.

Then why don’t you try them? There’s no particular reason why that approach would be inferior. My point is that nobody seems ready to try anything.

I have no earthly idea why Republicans have never been vocal about these reforms. Quite honestly, they don’t act as the party of free-markets on a depressingly regular basis.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

Examples of this include his recently expressed views on capital punishment, his obvious despair at the lack of gun control, his attempts to introduce universal health care, even his view that creationism has no place in education. His accusers would clearly like to see him hauled in front of some modern day equivalent of the McCarthy hearings for a public bollocking and a gaol sentence.

How am I a lunatic thinking that the Federal government can’t effectively run a healthcare system for 320 million people when they can’t run a healthcare system for 20m or so vets? Or am I lunatic wanting to live in a society that doesn’t mirror Western Europe (because you guys don’t exactly have your shit together either)?

Or am I simply lunatic because I’ve become to the seemingly logical conclusion that this President has done a piss-poor job for five and a half years?

I agree that it’s not for outsiders to tell America what to do, but even so, when a country spends more than anyone else on health care and gets worse results, it does suggest that the system needs an overhaul.

Why is a universal model the correct model? There are a slew of market-based reforms we could try – why would those be inferior?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden: Hero?

It now appears that you are a hero (of sorts?) if you can fart & pop your knuckles at the same time.

That doesn’t sound especially difficult.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Have fun making up things I never said and arguing with yourself.

Looks like you took the “How to Respond When You’re Wrong” workshop hosted by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. And no, not because you’re a racist. Because you’re an idiot claiming you were misquoted when I literally quoted your exact words.

EDIT: Idiot is too strong, but the fact remains, claiming you were misquoted doesn’t work terribly well on an internet forum.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

There’s a big difference between “viable option” and “having no choice”. Now you’re just putting words in my mouth for the sake a perpetuating a non-existent debate.

A viable option for what exactly? If the end goal is to spend as little time as possible preparing food, then yes, getting take out is a viable option. If, however, the end goal is to eat as affordably as possible, then no, it isn’t a viable option because eating take out consistly is patently not inexpensive and is far, far more expensive then taking the 120 seconds to make your own meals.

I know that we are all responsible for the choices we make, but why do you refuse to acknowledge that there are factors at play that contribute to those decisions, and that they vary from person to person?

The only factors you’ve mentioned are laziness and self-pity. Why should I feel bad for people who possess those two traits exactly? Coddling people who possess these undesirable traits hardly makes them want to change.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Where’s the argument? I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying eating healthier is easier said than done, especially when a person is caught in the vicious cycle of their own poor decisions.

The argument you made earlier is that the overweight don’t eat well because they don’t have the time and money when that is patently false, which you’ve admitted. At this point, we’re not arguing anything.

I just get irritated when I hear, “The lower-class overweight don’t have any options other than to eat donuts for breakfast lunch and dinner!” which is essentially what you were arguing on page one when you say things like, “Nobody wants to live on frozen dinners, take out and beer, but for many working class poor Americans who go home tired, hungry, and broke, these become viable options.”

This is a video game website… I might go so far as to suggest that you are probably more talk than walk.

Yeah, I don’t exercise. Well I ski a whole bunch. And walk and carry my clubs rather than use a cart when I play golf. But I haven’t exercised in nearly two years in the traditional sense. But! I made no comments about physical activity (since I’m really not someone to judge) – I simply said that EVERYONE has the time and many, many people (pretty much everyone, but I’m sure there’s the odd exception out there) have the economic wherewithal to eat better than they do.

Let he who is not a few pounds overweight cast the next stone.

I’m 5’ 10" and weigh 160. Hey look, I’m at average weight! I guess I can cast the next stone! Hurray!

But seriously – even if I was overweight, why does that stop me from being able to comment on this? Wouldn’t I know firsthand what it was like to make that conscious decision. In fact, I could argue that would give me more credibility than someone who is slender.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Look, I don’t want to get into the details of my personal life, but physical labor on the lowest working class wrung of the socioeconomic ladder is no picnic. The above comments are offensive and hurtful. Many of us who work hard for low pay spend our off days in physical pain and psychological turmoil as a result of our jobs.

That’s not a lower-class thing – that’s a human thing. I’m not swimming in cash and I certainly think about work on my evenings and weekends – that doesn’t prevent me from living a fairly healthy lifestyle. And quite frankly, as people move up the corporate ladder, they tend to have more responsibilities that weight on them, not less. CEOs don’t actually sit in their offices and think about how they can pay Fred in HR 2% less without him complaining, contrary to what the left likes to argue – they, you know, run the business.

If you choose not to understand that, it’s a result of your ignorance, not my inability to explain it.

The only thing I don’t understand is how you don’t have time to dump cereal and milk in a bowl for breakfast, make a ham sandwich for lunch, and throw a chicken or a cheap beef roast in the crock pot for dinner with some canned/frozen vegetables. All three dishes are fairly healthy meals. All three dishes are cheap. All three dishes take about 2 minutes of actual effort to prepare. Now, if you sincerely don’t have 2 minutes to prepare these meals, then I apologize. Otherwise, the whole “Woe is me!” is really, really disingenuous.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Originally posted by Aleazor:

Less than 100 years ago in this country, it didn’t matter if you were genetically predisposed to obesity, if you were poor, you went hungry. Nobody wants to live on frozen dinners, take out and beer, but for many working class poor Americans who go home tired, hungry, and broke, these become viable options.

It always amazes me that some people are bound and determined to defend and justify perpetual laziness.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Kasic comes from the United States of America I believe. Pretty sure what works in the USA will also work in the USA.

Kasic and jhco are even from the same state!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Because of groupthink and group polarization.

End of thread.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free speech vs. discrimination -- where do we draw the line?

So my question to everyone is—are her opinions appropriate and protected under free speech? Or are they out of line, and reflecting poorly on the college she represents? Are they discriminatory, and if so, should her military students be eligible for reparations and grades they feel they may have been awarded unfairly?

Depending on her contract, she absolutely can be fired as if the university continues to employ her, it comes off as looking as if they tacitly support her opinions. Now, I really hate when a prof is fired simply for having controversial views as universities are, allegedly, places where all views are supposed to be tolerated (clearly, there are some views that are thoroughly NOT tolerated, but let’s pretend universities actually live up to the standards that they’re supposed to fulfill shall we).

Offensive? Yes. Worthy of firing? Not in my opinion. Protected speech? Absolutely.